JPG VS WebP
The ultimate comparison guide. Understanding the technical differences between Joint Photographic Experts Group and Web Picture Format.
JPG
jpgUniversal image format with lossy compression, perfect for photography.
Pros
- Small file size
- Universal compatibility
- Adjustable compression levels
Cons
- Lossy compression (quality degrades)
- No transparency support
- No animation
WebP
webpModern format providing superior compression for web performance.
Pros
- Superior compression (30% smaller than JPG)
- Supports transparency
- Supports animation
Cons
- Not supported by very old browsers
- Complex encoding
When JPG wins
Stay with JPG when you need web images or digital photography. Its strengths center on small file size and a feature set native to Joint Photographic Experts Group.
When WebP wins
Choose WebP when your workflow prioritizes modern websites or app assets. It delivers superior compression (30% smaller than jpg) plus modern compression perks.
Technical Specifications
| Feature | JPG | WebP |
|---|---|---|
| MIME Type | image/jpeg | image/webp |
| Developer | Joint Photographic Experts Group | |
| Release Year | 1992 | 2010 |
| Best For | Web images, Digital photography, Email attachments | Modern websites, App assets, Speed optimization |
Need to switch?
Where JPG still wins
Keep JPG when you need small file size and workflows depend on web images / digital photography. Link those teams directly to the converter above so they can ship WebP deliverables without leaving their browser.
- • Reference the .jpg glossary from this page.
- • Embed the conversion CTA in docs, wikis, and onboarding runbooks.
- • Use WebP for modern websites while archiving originals as JPG.
Keep crawlers in the conversion hub
Link this comparison to the relevant tool, glossary, and documentation pages so every crawl discovers a monetizable route.